|
Good thing there aren't any concentration camps in America where we house undesirables.  The US government's Covid response probably qualifies as ethnic cleansing at this point too.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
In these camps your tinfoil blanket is your life. Instead of your bowl, and starvation, freezing to death is your worst enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 02:15
|
|
|
Historically most genocided people have grown in population except for the cartoonishly evil genocides like Ireland, ashkenazi jews, or indigenous americans. Being better than Literal Hitler is not a defense.Grand Theft Autobot posted:Good thing there aren't any concentration camps in America where we house undesirables. Just what the China thread needs, discourse about the USA. That's what a real leftist who cares about human rights instead of petty nationalism does, deflect to another country doing an equally bad thing. It's also extremely not racist to constantly talk about the US instead of engaging with a foreign country. Edgar Allen Ho fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Jun 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 02:19
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Historically most genocided people have grown in population except for the cartoonishly evil genocides like Ireland, ashkenazi jews, or indigenous americans. Being better than Literal Hitler is not a defense. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 02:23
|
|
|
Epiphyte posted:А у вас негров линчуют 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 02:56
|
|
|
Epiphyte posted:А у вас негров линчуют ouch
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 03:49
|
|
|
Epiphyte posted:А у вас негров линчуют Interesting argument. Tell me more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 04:45
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Historically most genocided people have grown in population except for the cartoonishly evil genocides like Ireland, ashkenazi jews, or indigenous americans. Being better than Literal Hitler is not a defense. I've bolded the parts I find important - it seems we are in agreement that both sides are as bad as the other. However, what's happening in the US is not being labelled a genocide, but this word IS being used to describe what's happening in China by US media and intelligence services, the state department, Pompeo and the rest of the consent manufacturing machine. There's an enforced double standard at play in how we talk about this stuff that ultimately favours the US and its interests. If we were using the term to also describe the migrant crises in Europe and the USA's activities on its border or how it treats its own minority population I'd have no issue with it. As for those dismissing census data out of hand as potentially fabricated, I'd be interested to see what qualifies as data you trust and how you make these decisions - if you're picking one set of figures over the other based on these kinds of loose assumptions that's fine, but ultimately isn't that a choice based on pure ideology and whose propaganda you find more convincing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 08:51
|
|
|
Judakel posted:I believe they mean Uyghurs in Xinjiang, which individuals in the past have claimed are dropping in numbers, but this census claims are actually increasing in number. I think he meant the same individuals you cite in your post to which I reply: which individuals? Cookie Cutter posted:I've bolded the parts I find important - it seems we are in agreement that both sides are as bad as the other. However, what's happening in the US is not being labelled a genocide,... Great, then raise that in the USpol thread, it has 0 relevance here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 09:25
|
|
|
Cookie Cutter posted:I've bolded the parts I find important - it seems we are in agreement that both sides are as bad as the other. However, what's happening in the US is not being labelled a genocide, but this word IS being used to describe what's happening in China by US media and intelligence services, the state department, Pompeo and the rest of the consent manufacturing machine. There's an enforced double standard at play in how we talk about this stuff that ultimately favours the US and its interests. If we were using the term to also describe the migrant crises in Europe and the USA's activities on its border or how it treats its own minority population I'd have no issue with it. Pompeo has been out of office for going on five months? You're doing whataboutism. Even if we agree that the US, China and the EU are equally bad, that doesn't somehow excuse the human rights abuses (put charitably) China is committing against Uighurs. It is possible that the US and China are both doing bad things! What you are doing is deflecting criticism of China by not discussing what is actually happening in Xinjiang and instead bringing up completely unrelated bad poo poo in the US and EU. Cookie Cutter posted:As for those dismissing census data out of hand as potentially fabricated, I'd be interested to see what qualifies as data you trust and how you make these decisions - if you're picking one set of figures over the other based on these kinds of loose assumptions that's fine, but ultimately isn't that a choice based on pure ideology and whose propaganda you find more convincing? There's a whole media literacy thread stickied where your notion of everything being "a choice based on pure ideology and whose propaganda you find more convincing" is addressed directly several times: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3966282 You're also deflecting on the census data. Should we trust census numbers from an authoritarian government actively denying reports (and hundreds of eyewitness testimonies) of human rights abuses? Well golly I dunno, what kind of data do you trust? Who can even know what's truth and what's fiction, it's all just propaganda. Conveniently, this media solipsism sidesteps any discussion of facts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 09:31
|
|
|
Cookie Cutter posted:I've bolded the parts I find important - it seems we are in agreement that both sides are as bad as the other. However, what's happening in the US is not being labelled a genocide, but this word IS being used to describe what's happening in China by US media and intelligence services, the state department, Pompeo and the rest of the consent manufacturing machine. There's an enforced double standard at play in how we talk about this stuff that ultimately favours the US and its interests. If we were using the term to also describe the migrant crises in Europe and the USA's activities on its border or how it treats its own minority population I'd have no issue with it. Do you agree that the chinese government is committing genocidal acts against the Uyghur population in Xinjiang, or do you insist this is not the case or that we do not really know?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 10:02
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Pompeo has been out of office for going on five months? I already said I know they're as bad as each other - it's not whataboutism when the descriptive terms to describe two equally bad things are different, and this difference happens to favour one particular side. The comparison is necessary to highlight this double standard which people ITT don't seem to be recognising. And it ain't me deflecting on the census data, when nobody has provided any convincing counter to it other than "it must be fake because the Chinese government is bad" or assuming that one population outgrowing the other is somehow proof of a genocide happening, and going around in a big circle. As I already said, I'd be interested to see these solid facts you feel comfortable putting your trust in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 10:13
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:i was counted in the latest chinese census. they came by my place last fall after work and asked me to fill out some basic demographic info and then came back a week later and asked me to confirm again that it was all correct. hope this helps I just had to do mine over the phone, the lady was actually really friendly it was kinda nice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 10:17
|
|
|
Cookie Cutter posted:I've bolded the parts I find important - it seems we are in agreement that both sides are as bad as the other. However, what's happening in the US is not being labelled a genocide, but this word IS being used to describe what's happening in China by US media and intelligence services, the state department, Pompeo and the rest of the consent manufacturing machine. There's an enforced double standard at play in how we talk about this stuff that ultimately favours the US and its interests. If we were using the term to also describe the migrant crises in Europe and the USA's activities on its border or how it treats its own minority population I'd have no issue with it. But it's not the same? Genocide is what the US and multiple european nation states have done to native Americans, various native minorities and what they support in several client states abroad. The refugee/migrant camps in the US and Europe are not aimed to eradicate an ethnicity or culture, they are to enforce national FYGM and racism by preventing non citizens to join the nation. If you want to argue that racism, global capitalism and climate change all effectively leads to genocide by forcing this migration then by all means do that, but that also implicates all participants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 10:19
|
|
|
Zudgemud posted:But it's not the same? Genocide is what the US and multiple european nation states have done to native Americans, various native minorities and what they support in several client states abroad. The refugee/migrant camps in the US and Europe are not aimed to eradicate an ethnicity or culture, they are to enforce national FYGM and racism by preventing non citizens to join the nation. If you want to argue that racism, global capitalism and climate change all effectively leads to genocide by forcing this migration then by all means do that, but that also implicates all participants. I agree with a lot of this. It just doesn't sit well with me that we as leftists are only saying genocide when we're discussing the adversary du jour of the country mainly responsible for propping up the system that is slowly genociding the planet. e: vv true Cookie Cutter fucked around with this message at 12:16 on Jun 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 10:57
|
|
|
Lmao if you think everyone itt is a 'leftist' (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 11:13
|
|
|
Lolling at putting geopolitics into context being painted as "whataboutism". (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 12:43
|
|
|
The main purpose of the camps in Xinjiang isn't to physically kill every Uighur person sent to them, it's "re-education". Read any interviews with camp survivors and they will tell you about being forced to consume patriotic propaganda and told to renounce their religious beliefs and ethnicity, not entirely unlike the boarding schools Native American children were sent to in the USA and Canada that genocide deniers in the thread are so desperate to talk about instead. Linking census data from the government showing a growth in population over the last decade is meaningless in the context of what is actually happening in Xinjiang whether the numbers are accurate or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 12:56
|
|
|
Largo posted:The main purpose of the camps in Xinjiang isn't to physically kill every Uighur person sent to them, it's "re-education". Read any interviews with camp survivors and they will tell you about being forced to consume patriotic propaganda and told to renounce their religious beliefs and ethnicity, not entirely unlike the boarding schools Native American children were sent to in the USA and Canada that genocide deniers in the thread are so desperate to talk about instead. Linking census data from the government showing a growth in population over the last decade is meaningless in the context of what is actually happening in Xinjiang whether the numbers are accurate or not. So data that directly contradicts the sabre rattling western media's claims of genocide is meaningless because you don't like it? Thanks for being honest I guess
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 13:00
|
|
|
'Genocide' in 1948 genocide convention doesn't mean "bad stuff" generically, but specifically requires an intent to destroy a protected group. This distinguishes it from other forms of brutality and ethnic cleansing more generally. e.g., an unfortunately real example within living memory, a passage from the 2005 UN Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur: quote:513. Was there a genocidal intent? Some elements emerging from the facts including the scale of atrocities and the systematic nature of the attacks, killing, displacement and rape, as well as racially motivated statements by perpetrators that have targeted members of the African tribes only, could be indicative of the genocidal intent. However, there are other more indicative elements that show the lack of genocidal intent. The fact that in a number of villages attacked and burned by both militias and Government forces the attackers refrained from exterminating the whole population that had not fled, but instead selectively killed groups of young men, is an important element. A telling example is the attack of 22 January 2004 on Wadi Saleh, a group of 25 villages inhabited by about 11 000 Fur. According to credible accounts of eye witnesses questioned by the Commission, after occupying the villages the Government Commissioner and the leader of the Arab militias that had participated in the attack and burning, gathered all those who had survived or had not managed to escape into a large area. Using a microphone they selected 15 persons (whose name they read from a written list), as well as 7 omdas, and executed them on the spot. They then sent all elderly men, all boys, many men and all women to a nearby village, where they held them for some time, whereas they executed 205 young villagers, who they asserted were rebels (Torabora). According to male witnesses interviewed by the Commission and who were among the survivors, about 800 persons were not killed (most young men of those spared by the attackers were detained for some time in the Mukjar prison). (I picked this example as an illustration. Note that a different forum - the ICC - did subsequently argue that Omar al-Bashir did have genocidal intent to destroy. The point here is to illustrate the criteria in use) This is of course a contested concept (there has been criticism of this line of argument since genocide was defined) but it does reflect, I think, the dominant interpretation. As I remarked in the other thread, this means that being industrially thorough in scope is heavily weighted in defining genocide. This reflects the unique historical horror (of the industrially thorough Holocaust) that so provoked the recognition of genocide as a crime deserving of special recognition to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 13:07
|
|
|
Largo posted:The main purpose of the camps in Xinjiang isn't to physically kill every Uighur person sent to them, it's "re-education". Read any interviews with camp survivors and they will tell you about being forced to consume patriotic propaganda and told to renounce their religious beliefs and ethnicity, not entirely unlike the boarding schools Native American children were sent to in the USA and Canada that genocide deniers in the thread are so desperate to talk about instead. Linking census data from the government showing a growth in population over the last decade is meaningless in the context of what is actually happening in Xinjiang whether the numbers are accurate or not. As a decendent of Native Americans who were sent to boarding schools they were 100% genocide.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 13:11
|
|
|
Cookie Cutter posted:It just doesn't sit well with me that we as leftists are only saying genocide when we're discussing the adversary du jour of the country mainly responsible for propping up the system that is slowly genociding the planet. Have you considered that the reason people in here use the term "genocide" to describe China's actions, rather than those of other countries, might have something to do with the fact that this is a thread about China, not other countries? I'm happy to call actions by other nations, including my own, genocide. I do not see why it has to be added as a disclaimer every single time another nation's actions are discussed, however. I mean, those of you insisting we need to talk about America every single time we say anything remotely critical about China in order to give "context", do you also insist we must talk about Nazi Germany whenever we talk about America? And talk about the Spanish Inquisition when we talk about Nazi Germany? And talk about the Mongols when we talk about the Spanish Inquisition? Is it atrocities all the way down? Daduzi fucked around with this message at 13:32 on Jun 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 13:29
|
|
|
I'm sorry if my post implied that what is happening in Xinjiang now isn't genocide or that the residential school systems in America were not genocide, they are. What I was trying to say is that not every person in the camps has to be killed on the spot for the camps to be genocidal, there are killings in the camps and forced sterilization, which both do fall under international legal definitions of genocide.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 13:45
|
|
|
Daduzi posted:Have you considered that the reason people in here use the term "genocide" to describe China's actions, rather than those of other countries, might have something to do with the fact that this is a thread about China, not other countries? what cookie cutter is talking about is almost the entirety of the issue here. the people in this thread mad at "cspam" will find their disagreement is because of exactly the disconnect that cookie cutter is talking about. take your post here, as an example. you say you're happy to call out actions by other nations, but have you done so? your post history shows no mentions of the word "genocide" outside of this thread, no mentions of palestine, gaza, yemen, rohingya, native schooling in canada, native americans, kids in cages. why is that? and this isnt on you, specifically, im just using it as an example. people seem primarily interested in discussing and applying the label to this one event. also please note that i am not trying to discuss the truth of any specific accusations or whatnot in here, i just find this discussion about the discussion interesting. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) fart simpson fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Jun 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 13:56
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Lmao if you think everyone itt is a 'leftist' Leftists already recognize contemporary genocides outside the PRC as genocide so what the gently caress is the point of bringing up the opinion of rando US americans in the China thread? I dunno if I'd go so far as to call it racist but people realize how utterly white anglo american it is to bullrush "BUT THE USA  , HAVE YOU HEARD OF IT?" into a discussion about another country is? Obviously the US is going to come up because it is the current winner of imperialism, but just talking about the US and US alone has no place here. US propaganda is going to be anti-PRC regardless, everyone knows that, what does a hypothetical MAGA chud's opinion about the situation in Xinjiang matter to a thread about China? My current gf is from Kazakhstan and right before covid hell visited her family. She posted on facebook and twitter a bit about some Uighur refugees who hadn't been there before and what they experienced. Of course this managed to summon tankies going "ah yes, but Andrew Jackson." Like who the gently caress cares? We all know. It's garbage discourse on the tier of "you say Hiter was bad, have you ever heard of this Stalin character??"
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 14:03
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:what cookie cutter is talking about is almost the entirety of the issue here. the people in this thread mad at "cspam" will find their disagreement is because of exactly the disconnect that cookie cutter is talking about. take your post here, as an example. you say you're happy to call out actions by other nations, but have you done so? your post history shows no mentions of the word "genocide" outside of this thread, no mentions of palestine, gaza, yemen, rohingya, native schooling in canada, native americans, kids in cages. why is that? and this isnt on you, specifically, im just using it as an example. people seem primarily interested in discussing and applying the label to this one event. also please note that i am not trying to discuss the truth of any specific accusations or whatnot in here, i just find this discussion about the discussion interesting. perhaps it might help if you notice that there is only one genocide that you can deny and not be banned on SA, so it's not required to consistently relitigate other genocides because there's no group constantly chiming in to go "nuh uh! look at this report from skechers about how there are is no slave labor in their factories!". when there's consensus there's generally not discussion. if you want to have a conversation on the distinction between a cultural genocide and a genocide cleaves to earlier definitions, we can have that, but the latter category excludes a lot of genocides that are consistently referenced here and in wider discussion, so I don't think it's a particularly meaningful discussion at this point. also the idea that you need to establish genocide credibility or something is completely gross. this is an online forum - me choosing not to discuss something is me choosing not to discuss something, not a clue in some greater puzzle to reveal my true intentions. Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Jun 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 14:23
|
|
|
Owlspiracy posted:perhaps it might help if you notice that there is only one genocide that you can deny and not be banned on SA, so it's not required to consistently relitigate other genocides because there's no group constantly chiming in to go "nuh uh! look at this report from skechers about how there are is no slave labor in their factories!". when there's consensus there's generally not discussion. if you want to have a conversation on the distinction between a cultural genocide and a genocide cleaves to earlier definitions, we can have that, but the latter category excludes a lot of genocides that are consistently referenced here and in wider discussion, so I don't think it's a particularly meaningful discussion at this point. im not trying to gatekeep, im explaining why this keeps coming up
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 14:32
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:what cookie cutter is talking about is almost the entirety of the issue here. the people in this thread mad at "cspam" will find their disagreement is because of exactly the disconnect that cookie cutter is talking about. take your post here, as an example. you say you're happy to call out actions by other nations, but have you done so? your post history shows no mentions of the word "genocide" outside of this thread, no mentions of palestine, gaza, yemen, rohingya, native schooling in canada, native americans, kids in cages. why is that? and this isnt on you, specifically, im just using it as an example. people seem primarily interested in discussing and applying the label to this one event. also please note that i am not trying to discuss the truth of any specific accusations or whatnot in here, i just find this discussion about the discussion interesting. I dunno what to tell you man, except that if you check my posting history you get 480 something posts while if you check my profile you'll see I've made 11249 posts. I'd be wary about making concrete conclusions about what I usually discuss from that. To say nothing of the fact that this isn't the only place I post poo poo. I'm good with the ratio of China-specific:non-China-specific nonsense I spout, but your concern is appreciated. edit: quick thought experiment for those of you who continue to insist that the US's various crimes against humanity are a necessary component of any discussion of contemporary events in China: If you regularly attempt to discuss current and past US atrocities, corruption, inherent systemic unfairness etc with others, but each time you do one dude keeps bringing up how bad things were during the Cultural Revolution, would you assume said dude is: a) attempting to help contextualise the issue in order to generate deeper, more meaningful analysis of US issues; or b) attempting to distract and obfuscate because they are uncomfortable with criticism of the US for some reason and wish to bring the discussion to a crashing halt. Daduzi fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Jun 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 14:46
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:im not trying to gatekeep, im explaining why this keeps coming up it comes up for a variety of reasons depending on the person - for some people invested in the idea that anyone opposed to the us is good (RIP guyovich), china doing bad things raises uncomfortable questions about their worldview, and therefore is a reality which much be rejected; for others, they feel that there is a concerted campaign by the us media and foreign policy establishment to create a new cold war between china and the us, and the uighar genocide is part of that narrative, so questioning it is rejecting us hegemony akin to questioning the WMD narrative pre-iraq, and others are probably trolls. to the first group i say lol, there are no good actors or nations in global politics, and to the second group i would argue that that view is a disservice to the actual victims of the genocide, and that we're posting on a forum, none of us are members of the us media or foreign policy community, and we are all smart enough to recognize that more than one thing can be bad at once: its bad that china is eliminating an ethnic minority, and its bad that the us is pursuing an aggressive hardline foreign agenda. but the existence of the latter does not overshadow - or dismiss - the former. my other, larger issue with this is that the language, terminology and specific arguments used to dismiss the uighur genocide are identical to the arguments used to dismiss other genocides. the idea that pursuing a campaign of placing people in camps is a resource drain and thus illogical (the holocaust); that this is an internal dispute and china has authority within its own borders (rwanda); that the uighur ethnic group poses a threat and china is justified (every genocide in existence). i also reject wholesale the idea that we need to quibble between the distinctions between "genocide" and "cultural genocide" beyond acknowledging that "china isn't rounding up uighurs and shooting them in the back of the head and dumping their bodies in a ditch" - because the last several hundred years of history have shown that it is appropriate to describe a sustained campaign of cultural destruction as a genocide. i would encourage you to read some of the early news coverage of the rwanda genocide and how people responded to it in the moment and then seriously reconsider reframing every discussion of whats happening in xianjing in the context of "global politics" and "the us". i am not arguing we should be invading china, but at the very least we have a responsibility to recognize whats happening and speak about it honestly without constantly reframing everything in the context of "but the us!" and "new cold war!". Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Jun 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 14:51
|
|
|
Daduzi posted:
It would of course a) because when you reverse the context like you did, you would also be getting all your information from Chinese news sources (something you forgot to mention in your exersice, which really demonstrates that you created this out of bad faith).
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
Do the same thought experiment but with Israel. What if everttime israel brought up nazi genocide some rear end in a top hat the conversation by introducing Palestinian people. Why can't Zionists just have a complete monopoly on context and language and the Palestinians just shut the gently caress up for a second
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:what cookie cutter is talking about is almost the entirety of the issue here. the people in this thread mad at "cspam" will find their disagreement is because of exactly the disconnect that cookie cutter is talking about. take your post here, as an example. you say you're happy to call out actions by other nations, but have you done so? your post history shows no mentions of the word "genocide" outside of this thread, no mentions of palestine, gaza, yemen, rohingya, native schooling in canada, native americans, kids in cages. why is that? and this isnt on you, specifically, im just using it as an example. people seem primarily interested in discussing and applying the label to this one event. also please note that i am not trying to discuss the truth of any specific accusations or whatnot in here, i just find this discussion about the discussion interesting. People don't need to post about other genocides in other threads to post about China's genocide against the Uighurs in this one. Message me and I'll talk your ear off about An Gorta Mór and the different faces of genocide, allowing everyone else here to focus discussion on the one China is currently committing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2021 21:50
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:People don't need to post about other genocides in other threads to post about China's genocide against the Uighurs in this one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 01:42
|
|
|
Kindest Forums User posted:It would of course a) because when you reverse the context like you did, you would also be getting all your information from Chinese news sources (something you forgot to mention in your exersice, which really demonstrates that you created this out of bad faith). Or I could have left it out because I'm exposed to Chinese news sources on a daily basis so it didn't occur to me that you were assuming everyone inhabits the same media bubble you do. Kindest Forums User posted:Do the same thought experiment but with Israel. What if everttime israel brought up nazi genocide some rear end in a top hat the conversation by introducing Palestinian people. Why can't Zionists just have a complete monopoly on context and language and the Palestinians just shut the gently caress up for a second Nobody in this thread is a state actor. Daduzi fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Jun 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 02:35
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:im not trying to gatekeep, im explaining why this keeps coming up It keeps coming up because Owlspiracy posted:there is only one genocide that you can deny and not be banned on SA When other genocides are denied on Something Awful, people eat long probations and bans for it. When the Uigher genocide gets denied, people maybe get a sixer if they didn't shroud their denial in enough "I'm just asking questions" BS and aren't posting in CSPAM. The presence of an abundance of genocide deniers does not indicate that there is good reason to believe the genocide isn't happening, it indicates that shitheads are being allowed to run rampant. Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Jun 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 03:37
|
|
|
Kindest Forums User posted:Do the same thought experiment but with Israel. What if everttime israel brought up nazi genocide some rear end in a top hat the conversation by introducing Palestinian people. Why can't Zionists just have a complete monopoly on context and language and the Palestinians just shut the gently caress up for a second this analogy is exactly backwards. what is happening in china is accelerating, as is what is happening in palestine, whereas both andrew jackson and adolf hitler are dead. and when people bring up the plaestinian genocide, people liyerally DO deflect to the holocaust, instead of the opposite in your "thought experiment." hypothesis disproved, next please
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2021 03:49
|
|
|
Crossposting from GBS because I felt like this topic kinda fits more here: A short history of the Taiwanese Nuclear Weapons Program I haven't really edited this so we'll see how much it makes sense. OK, so a lot of what I’m getting this from comes from this book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07KKL1V6N/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 It is not that long and is like three bucks Amazon is anyone wants to read through the whole thing. • In 1946, prior to the Nationalists evacuation to Taiwan a then-Mainland Chinese Military officer and physics professor joined groups from other allied U.S countries to attend the detonation of the atomic bomb in the Marshall Islands in the South Pacific.  • It’s difficult to pinpoint when the Generalissimo took the steps to make a nuclear weapon, but it is pretty easy to ascertain he was interested in the idea of a nuclear weapon when that atomic bomb detonated in 1946. • With the PRC firmly in control in the Mainland after 1949, it seems that President Chiang’s nuclear dreams solidified. Because he did not believe that the conventional military power of the ROC was ever going to be enough to retake the mainland on its own (which is why he was also offering the US a 2nd front in the Korean war, and hoped that MacArthur would invade deep into China from the North while he goes in from the South) • There was growing nuclear cooperation between the PRC and the Soviet Union. The Soviets provided the Mao the materials and expertise to make nuclear weapons. Now in actuality, the cooperation between the USSR and the PRC re: nukes would end by the late 50s, because Mao and Khrushchev could not get along, and the Soviets were not too keen on helping China get their own weapon after 59. Much of this information was unknown or not believed by the West, just because they could not believe that two communist countries would dislike each other. • Once the Korean War is “over” in 1953, Chiang publicly announced that the ROC would NOT develop its own atomic weapons. Why do you think Chiang--- eager to understand the capabilities of WMD’s and the growing strength of the PRC military publicly downplay his pursuit of them? • The U.S could provide a “nuclear blanket” for Taiwan. • In December of 1954, amid the First Taiwan strait crisis, the U.S deployed a nuclear armed aircraft carrier to patrol the waters between Taiwan and the Mainland, while also stationing nuclear weapons on the near-by island of Okinawa. • In January 1958, the U.S supplied nuclear capable missiles (minus the actual nuclear part) to Taiwan to deter the PRC from shelling the island. • Previously, Chiang requested American nuclear missiles (nuclear part included) to be stationed within Taiwan--- Washington initially declined the request. • In January 1960, America capitulated to the repeated requests and stationed roughly a dozen nuclear weapons on the island. In 1964, the PRC successfully tested their own weapon, which then really drives the point home to Chiang that he needs to get nuclear weapons, right now. • At the same time this going on in the 1950s, Taiwan and the US are working together on getting a nuclear power program set-up on the island. By 1966, this plan had changed into “Operation Hsinchu” – a secret nuclear facility in Hsinchu, Taiwan. •  • By the late 1960s, the United States is getting very suspicious on what Taiwan is trying to do. Diplomatic cables declassified in the past ten years show that the CIA is getting wind of their operation – namely, Taiwan is trying to buy a nuclear reactor from Germany. The US stops them from doing so. (https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2019-01-10/taiwans-bomb) You’ll start to see a pattern emerge here: the united states does not trust Taiwan at all with their own nuclear weapon, and tries really, really hard to make sure they don’t get one. • After Nixon’s normalization visits in the early 1970s, the desire for getting a bomb started to change away from an offensive capability into a defensive one – the idea of re-taking the mainland now seen as impossible, a nuclear weapon could then be used to prevent a Chinese invasion. • In 1972, the US removes all of their nuclear warheads off the island. Taiwan had to look elsewhere to gain expertise and protection--- they found a willing and like-minded partner with Israel. In the late 70s/early 80s, you have this triangular trade between Taiwan, Israel, and Apartheid South Africa for engineers, material, etc. • In order to make the program look innocuous, there does need to be a non-weapons based nuclear program on the online. That has always been the official distinction coming from Chiang Ching-Kuo, Chiang Kai-Shek’s son, and future President of the country. As part of the “10 Great Construction Projects” of the 1970s, the building of Taiwan’s first two nuclear reactors begins. The first opens in 1978, the second in 1981. All of the main engineering for these plants came from the test facility in Hsinchu, which was the location of the first Taiwanese “Science Park” – which is still the area in Taiwan where the major chip manufactures have their headquarters. How much of this “Taiwanese Silicon Valley” idea was there to hide the intentions the nuclear testing facility?...a little bit. • With the official US recognition of the PRC in 1978, the ROC is left out in the cold, having been blindsided several times by multiple US administrations on these types of announcements. In 1978 (or 79, now I’m getting fuzzy) Chiang Ching-Kuo officially states again that Taiwan will not develop nuclear weapons, and all nuclear projects have peaceful outcomes in mind. By 1971, the Taiwanese Research Reactor was capability of producing weapons-grade plutonium, and they had continuously been doing tests for the entirety of the 1970s. They had also, through official channels, acquired a French nuclear reactor (although the French engineers and diplomats that were involved in buying it had to take multi-year “vacations” to Taiwan to get it done) and were using Canadian uranium in their nuclear power reactors. • Once we get into the 1980s, things start to get spicy. The United States knew that something was up about the Hsinchu research facility. But they had no definitive proof. • Up comes Colonial Chang Hsien-yi, a director of one of the nuclear facilities-- who had been secretly working for the CIA. But we’ll get to him later. • In 1987, Chiang Ching-Kuo begins the transition to a democratic society. Martial Law is ended, and Chiang states that his chosen successor is Lee Deng-Hui – a Taiwanese born agricultural engineer. Lee himself has very few allies inside the military – in fact, most of the waishengren (people who came from the mainland after 1949) hate his guts. But this is Chiang’s wish – and no one in the Taiwanese military was willing to go against Chiang. Yet. That situation could greatly change after he dies…or if the military itself gets a nuclear weapon. • In January of 1988, Chang is told by his CIA handler that he needs to get him and his family out of the country. They plan to go on a trip to Tokyo Disneyland. Now you’re also seeing how little the Taiwanese government knew about Chang and his spying activities – in the 1960s and 70s they never would have let someone like Chang leave the island. On January 12th, the day Chang is supposed to be back at work, he never shows up. His family had gone straight from the Tokyo airport to the US embassy and received US passports. The next day, Chiang-Ching-Kuo dies. I know in 1988 Chang releases a letter stating his reasons on why he defected and told the world about the nuclear weapons program, but I’ve never been able to find it in English and just had a few points read to me in Chinese – one of which makes no sense to me: That Chang was afraid of the Dangwai movement (the independent political group that would be the foundation of the Democratic Progressive Party, the current party in charge of the country) would try to use nuclear weapons to force Taiwanese independence. Now, if you know anything about the DPP, you know that they are rabid anti-nuclear in all forms, and have been since the 70s, so I have no idea why Chang would think that. •  • As soon as Chiang is dead, the US makes its move on Lee. The American Institute in Taiwan (the de facto embassy) leader David Dean meets Chang and Chang hands over everything he has about the nuclear weapons program. Dean then meets with two people: the new President Lee, and General Hau Pei-Tsun, the leader of the nuclear weapons program. It turns out that Lee himself was on a “need to know” basis on how far along the program was – and it turns out that the military generals were…well not lying on what was going, but not telling him the full truth of the extent of the program and how far along the development was. Through a letter from President Reagan, the United States tells Lee that there is the possibility that if the Taiwanese military were to complete the nuclear weapons program, they would try to seize control of the government, and kick his rear end to the curb. They deliver Lee and Hau and ultimatum: drop the program or US/Taiwan relations would be hosed. • Quote from the book: quote:On January 20, 1988, Dean met with General Hau. Hau wrote in his diary that Dean told him that INER must “dismantle all equipment relating to nuclear weapon development; take heavy water out of the TRR, and TRR should be no longer in use.”17 He said that the United States was willing to cooperate with Taiwan on peaceful nuclear energy but implied that the cooperation was threatened. Dean also provided Hau with satellite images of the Chiu-Peng (also referred to as Jioupeng) military missile testing range in the south of Taiwan and stated that high explosive tests related to nuclear weapons development had occurred there.18 Hua wrote in his diary that the United States had presented a non-negotiable memorandum to sign within a week regarding the full dismantlement of Taiwan’s nuclear weapons program. Dean told Hau that the letter from President Reagan to President Lee presented similar demands. Hau’s diary entry that day is defensive but he promised Dean compliance and cooperation. Hau remarked in his diary, “This incident is a serious crisis in Taiwan-US relations.”19 He wrote, “I agree with the US’ request to completely dismantle equipment related to nuclear weapon development. I will report my intent to President Lee.” Although Taipei had one week to sign the memorandum, it apparently did so sooner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 04:49
|
|
|
This is a Chinese cartoon character. His name is Hui Tai Lang. This is his wife. She is also a Chinese cartoon character, and her name is Hong Tai Lang.  She often hits him with frying pans when he fails. It is very funny. It is very Chinese. I haven't lived in China for some 3 years now, so I don't know if the show they are on is still airing. Oh, also the CCP are engaged in genocide in Xinjiang. Have been for quite a while now. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool to themselves and a burden to others. I hope this post has been of use and/or interest to all concerned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 09:09
|
|
|
Daduzi posted:
maybe i'm a state
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
Maybe I’m an an actor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2021 03:03
|
|
